HARRISBURG _ One of the first things you notice upon meeting state Corrections Secretary John Wetzel is that he’s a big guy. Ex-football
player big. Ex-prison guard big. With hands like a pair of catchers’ mitts, and shoulders broad enough to have held his own on the offensive line.

This isn’t hyperbole. It all has the convenience of being true. The new, 42-year-old head of Pennsylvania’s state prison system was an offensive lineman who played high school, college and semi-pro football. He also started his career as a guard at the Lebanon County prison in 1989 and did a tour at the county jail in Berks County before being named warden of the Franklin County jail in 2002.

Wetzel, of Chambersburg, Franklin County, was appointed to the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons in 2007 and was appointed Corrections Secretary by Gov. Tom Corbett in January. Wetzel recently sat down in his office on the grounds of the Camp Hill state prison to discuss his views on the role of the prisons system and – almost importantly – the role the community plays in making sure inmates don’t return to jail.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity by Morning Call Harrisburg Correspondent John L. Micek.

Q: So you’re in now, it’s been what, three or four months?

A: Six months.

Q: Six months. What’s been the biggest surprise in the job so far? Compared to where you were coming from in Franklin County?

A: (laughs) Other than scope? But that’s not a surprise. I would say the shape the department was in from the personnel standpoint. There was a lot more in place – especially as it relates to the day-to-day operation of the facilities. They’re in very good shape. There’s a lot to build upon with the existing staff.

Q: What was your relationship like with Secretary Beard? To what extent did you interact with him before you came in? Was there a how-to memo left behind? Or did they take all the Js and Ws off the keyboards?

A: Actually, the executive deputy, Shirley Moore Smeal, was here. I’d been the co-chair of the [Corbett administration’s] criminal justice transition team for the governor, along with Ed Marsico, the DA for Dauphin County. So that really sped up the learning curve. That started before I got appointed, in early December or late November. There were four agencies under that transition team. It was Department of Corrections, Parole, State Police and [the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency]. So Ed and I kind of split it. I had DoC and Parole. So a month and a half before I came on board, I did nothing but study the Department of Corrections and Parole. So it really sped up the learning. Shirley agreed to stay on as the executive director. She was acting secretary. It really was the key thing early on that made the transition pretty smooth.

Q: Do you see yourself as the Secretary of Prisons or the Secretary of Corrections?

A: Corrections. That’s our duty, first of all, to give people the opportunity to correct their behavior, first and foremost. But it’s also beyond prisons. We have community corrections. We have programs. We also interact on a daily basis with Parole. So there’s a community component. I think when you say ‘prisons’ alone. What I hear there is the day-to-day operations of prisons alone. And it’s so much beyond that. Our focus is really public safety, when people get out. So it’s reducing criminal behavior by providing good programs and also by teaching individuals who historically don’t know how to follow rules to follow rules. That’s the first step in their rehabilitation. So I think by saying Secretary of Prisons. It really limits the scope and doesn’t accurately reflect who we are as an organization.

Q: The way the system is structured now, with its [inmate] capacity what it is now, how much actual opportunity is there for correcting people as opposed to just warehousing them?

A: I think there’s significant opportunity to provide good, evidence-based programming. There’s waiting lists, but we have the ability to prioritize. So the people who are closet to getting out, we target the programming to them. And I think when you have the range of programming we do, we have the opportunity to be flexible. And also, having 27 facilities, 25 of them male facilities, that gives us tremendous flexibility. And we’re in the process now of looking at how we can better deliver the programs by, for instance, targeting Pittsburgh and Chester, for example, are basically drug and alcohol treatment facilities. But we also have education there. And one of the things we’re looking at is does it make sense, or should we have education facilities -- so to use the flexibility in inherent in having this many facilities to better provide programming.

Q: Explain that a bit if you would. Because the knock you hear – at least from the people who attach their comments to the bottom of our Web stories – is that there’s this conception that the inmates are sitting around all day, or they’re watching television or they’re working out in the gym. That there’s not a lot of that going on beyond that. When you talk about programming, what are you talking about specifically?

A: There’s an educational side of the house, which is both traditional educational and vocational education. And then there’s what I’ll call a treatment side of the house that involves criminal thinking and addressing the thinking errors that lead people to commit crimes. There’s also drug and alcohol and there’s different levels based on the acuity of the individual. There’s also violence prevention. There’s domestic violence. I think that about covers it. But there’s not a facility that we have that doesn’t have programming. So I think that would be a misconception. What I generally say, you know, is ‘Take a tour.’ And then after you’re done with the tour, come out and tell me if you still have the same perceptions. And some of that is shame on us for not doing a better job of explaining what we do, to be quite honest. But we’re giving it a shot.

Q: Your agency’s budget is $1.8 billion. You’ve been pretty vocal about wanting to rein in costs. And I read something you said the other day that you think the political environment is better than ever for that to happen. How do you do that? And what signs are you getting that is actually the case?

A: One, it’s pretty simple, reduce population. Our budget is simply a multiple of the number of inmates who are in our system. So the corollary to that is to reduce the number of people in our system and reduce our budget. Two, from basically Day One. And you know this process, you meet with all the senators individually. I had a House Appropriation hearing. I had Senate Appropriation hearing. A confirmation hearing before Senate Judiciary. I met with both caucuses on the Senate side. Probably met with 20 or 30 House members. Everyone across the board says we have to do something about nonviolent offenders. So it’s very clear to me that there is political will to re-look at how we administer justice in Pennsylvania. Specifically with nonviolent offenders who are being sent to the Department of Corrections. The research indicates that when you over incarcerate, when you send people who could be dealt with at a lower level in the Corrections continuum, it just doesn’t cost you more money, it also potentially increases their future criminality. At the end fo the day, crime rates are our measure. So as a system, we need to make better decisions based on research and based on risk assessment and needs assessment and place people at the proper level of the continuum.

Let me give you a for-instance. Last year, 28 percent of the people who came here, who were sentenced from court, were a nonviolent offender. And that includes a 10-year lookback period. That’s the group, right there, that arguably, a portion of that group could be better served at a lower level on the continuum. So it’s, first of all, getting agreement on what the definition of a nonviolent offender is and then figuring out what’s the better intervention to address the root causes of the crime so they don’t commit future crime. And some of those folks, it would be better to put them in treatment. Some of those folks could be handled through probation and parole, house arrest, GPS perhaps and those kinds of things. So there’s ample opportunity and there’s things that other states have done, such as emphasis on specialty courts and those kinds of things that I think is on the table now in Pennsylvania.

Q: Do you get the sense that the policy is catching up with the research? It seems like we get a press release across the desk from Representative X or Senator X who wants to enhance the penalties for this, that or the other offense. All you can do is deal with the people who are sent to you. Do you get a sense now that, at least on the front end, there is a change in perception that maybe the constant hiking of penalties has not been the best policy?

A: I probably wouldn’t paint with that broad a brush. I think we need to make good decisions based on data as opposed to emotional decisions. And I would say that is consistent across our system and with that approach. So to be more specific, I think, in some cases, people spend more time in here than they need to. But in other cases, it makes sense for there to be a mandatory sentences for some offenses. So I don’t think you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think good systems, in general make good decisions, based on good data. And to the extent that we can get our system to do that better, we’ll have a better system.

One of the things that I was very cautious of coming here, before you make a change, you want to understand what the current practice is and how they got there. Because in most cases, there were certain circumstances that led to a decision. So before you go, ‘Well, um, that just doesn’t make any sense, we need to change it,’ understand the history of it. That goes the same for this initiative. Let’s understand why we got where we got to and let’s keep the things that make sense. But there’s a whole new body of research, especially in the last 10 years, on effective intervention and ways to reduce crime. Let’s look and make sure Pennsylvania is behaving consistently with that body of research.

Q: Pennsylvania has one of the largest and most expensive death rows in the country. Former Gov. Rendell, for instance, complained about the slow pace of appeals. Is the death penalty still an effective deterrent in Pennsylvania and what do you think can be done to reduce the size of the state’s death row?

A: I don’t know what the research says as far as the deterrence. And I’m not even sure that if the goal is simply deterrence or what the goal is. That’s kind of over my head, I’ll say … As far as how the appellate process works, that’s really beyond my scope.

Q: Do you believe in capital punishment?

A: It would be my job to administer it. Whether I believe in it or not, I’m prepared to do my job.

Q: You came into this job from the ground level up, as a corrections officer and as the warden of a county jail. What do you think you bring to the table as a result of that experience? What has that taught you about the existing system?

A: First of all, learn the system from the bottom up is, I think is real important. Because when you set policy and you set procedure and you set direction, oftentimes we lose sight of the implications at the line level. I spent a lot of time at the line level. And so I’d like to think that I factor that in. I’d also like to think that I value the input from the line level on up before we make decisions that have big implications. Because, again, at this level you can set something but not understand what the logistics look like out in the field. I think I’m sensitive to that. also, coming from outside the stat system really gives you a different perspective. I think any system, as good a system as I inherited, after Secretary Beard, for someone to say “Why are we doing this?” at every turn, probably ad nauseam, I think a good process to go through to make sure you’re not doing something just because you’ve always done it that way. And there is actual justification and that justification is consistent with the philosophy of the new administration.

And working in counties, you have to be very flexible. As a county warden, you often have very diverse duties You have less staff. And you end up being more hands-on. That gives you a broad knowledge base. Like I never had anyone to write my press releases until I got here. (laughter). These guys do a much better job than I did. Just having that perspective, from HR to every aspect … and then, especially, given the big emphasis on reentry from the prisons. You know, county jails are reentry centers, period. So having that, you know, that end of the operation and looking at our community corrections system and looking at ways to improve our community corrections system, I think coming from that county perspective really is a bonus.

Q: One of your first acts when you came in was to pull the plug on a new prison in Fayette County. And now you’re building these new facilities in Montgomery County on the grounds of Graterford Prison. The argument you made for it was really intriguing: You have to have these prisons closer to where the inmates actually come from. Could you talk a bit about your thinking on that?

A: I wouldn’t say that was the argument. It was a component of it. I think it’s important that, as people get closer to getting out, I think that that our system and our field and our profession really has recognized the importance of having pro-social supports and family supports in place as a key part in keeping individuals from coming back. And, more importantly than coming back, from committing more crimes. And so we have approximately a 10,000-bed discrepancy when you look at beds in the east and beds in the east and it’s pretty much vice-versa to the west. So in looking at it, there were a couple of criteria we looked at. Number one, did we own the land?

And we felt like it was real important to build on the grounds of existing facilities. Not just from a purchasing property standpoint, but also from an operational standpoint. Clearly it makes sense to put them on the same grounds, especially if you want to move out of the old ones and still have empty old ones to fall back on if we need to. And the department has a history of doing that. Especially in the near past. So I thought that was important. But getting back to getting people close to home. We really think that’s an essential piece and we really think we need to maximize on that aspect of reentry that maybe we necessarily haven’t done as strongly as we needed to in the past. And I think when you look at the SCI Phoenix project, which is on the grounds of Graterford, we redesigned that. And one of the key parts of the redesign was to put a female transitional unit on the grounds. A self-contained outside female transition unit.

We really felt as an administration that it was essential. With females coming back to the Philadelphia area. About 28 percent of our female population, somewhere in that ballpark are from that area. And the closest female facility is in Muncie, which is about 140 miles, maybe even a little more. So when you talk about female offenders in particular, oftentimes, more often than not, you’re talking about the primary caregiver. And that adds another dynamic to reentry. SO by putting a facility closer, to encourage visits, especially with the children, will aid in that reintegration process. It also allowed us to really pursue partnerships with community agencies and churches and faith-based agencies in the Philadelphia area. And what we really want to do is establish a really strong, inside-out, kind of mentoring guidance program for these females and their families. Because in the case of custodial parents, it’s not just about them staying out and not committing crimes, it’s about the next generation and the next generation after that. If, long term, we really want to improve Pennsylvania, from a crime and criminal justice standpoint, the kids have to be part of this mix, to be part of the discussion. And we felt very strongly that putting that female unit down there was a step in the right direction.

Q: You’ve said you believe there’s a very strong community responsibility [when it comes to Corrections]. How so?

A: We all have a role. But 90 to 95 percent of our offenders are going to go back to the community. But, going back to corrections versus prison, I feel very strongly that we need to provide individuals with meaningful opportunities to address the root causes of their crime. But, literally, when they walk out of our front door, that’s it for the Department of Corrections. That’s it. We’re done. Front door, back door, whatever. But they’re going to and they’re goping to move next to you or they’re going to be working in the store you go in. Or working around your children or whatever. So everyone is invested in them getting back to the community and being successful.

Most communities have a pretty successful and positive social structure. One of the big challenges with our offenders, in particular, [is] not having associates who are not criminally involved. (5:23). I’ll explain it to you like this: There’s times in every person’s life when you come on hard times and you gotta make a tough decision. And most of have been in a situation where things are really bad and it’s Chicken Little, the sky is falling moments and you pick up the phone and you call somebody. In most of our cases, you call someone and they say you can do this or you can do this, or let me help you get a job. Some people pick up the phone and say ‘Hey man, I really gotta find a job, I’m not making ends meet,” and the person on the other end of the line says, ‘Well, I know this store that has TVs and computers and I think they don’t have a camera at the back door. Come see me tonight.’ (4:43) And that’s an extreme example. But the reality is that successful people have had other people who have helped them get to where they’re at. And so to create a network of these pro-social supports who can mentor and provide guidance for our offenders is essential. And it’s not any different than you and I or anyone else who got anywhere. So our volunteer program, of which we have a pretty significant number of volunteers, those volunteer programs are exactly targeted to create pro-social networks. Faith communities in society are great social networks. And to the extent that we can plug our offenders into them, it’s excellent. Plus they live there anyhow. They’re going back there anyhow. It makes a lot of sense and it’s a resource that has been undertapped, I believe.

Q: You played high school football. You played college football. You were an offensive lineman and even played semipro. Did the NFL ever come knocking?
A: If I was good enough I would have played in the NFL. No question about it (laughs).